Tilden won many claycourt tournaments including the World Hardcourt in 1921 and many US Claycourts. When the Musketeers came onto the scene he was already in his thirties. He also injured his knee around 1927 I believe and that affected him the rest of his career. Also bear in mind the US Championships had an international field and Tilden still won. Players came from England, Japan, France, Australia etc. Bill Johnston was a great player who also won Wimbledon and several US Championship and Tilden defeated him most of the time.

Click to expand...

Johnston would have been a dominant player if it hadn't had been for Tilden. A bit like Pancho Segura for much of the 1950s, if it hadn't had been for Gonzales.

Didn't Tilden almost win the French in 1927 when on match point he clearly served an ace but it was called a fault by Cochet?

Click to expand...

The 1927 French Championships final saw Rene Lacoste beat Bill Tilden by 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9. Was Henri Cochet a line judge? Seriously? Doesn't that call line judge impartiality into question? Tilden was back playing in Europe for the first time in 6 years because of the threat the Musketeers posed to Tilden's dominance. Tilden had an even more frustrating loss at 1927 Wimbledon, when he blew a 2-set and 5-1 in the third set lead against eventual champion, Cochet.

Tilden won the WHCC at the Stade Francis, Paris in 1921, and the 1927 French Championships was also held there (the last one before it moved to Roland Garros in 1928 ). Tilden failed to win the French Championships as an amateur, but he won 2 French Pros (in 1933 and 1934), beating Cochet and Martin Plaa in the respective finals.

No problem. Bear in mind that even in that Laver against Ashe 1969 Wimbledon semi that Laver would shortly become 31 and many believe he was already past his prime by a few years even though he won the Grand Slam that year.

Here's highlights of the match that Laver won the Grand Slam, the 1969 US Open final against Tony Roche who was a sensational player. Notice how awful the courts at the old West Side Tennis club. Not only are the courts much faster than Wimbledon of today but the bounces were just awful. Often the ball wouldn't bounce at all. You couldn't play baseline tennis like today if you wanted to win. Obviously that and the much inferior equipment affects the level of play.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

Didn't know they wore spiked shoes back then.At some spots the court was in terrible condition.

Too bad the video was so limited in that ERA and even well into the seventies.

Click to expand...

If you look at Laver in the two videos notice the big differences between the Laver of 1975 and the Laver of 1969, I believe Laver had some injuries that hampered his serve and I understand he had a wrist injury that hampered him for the rest of his career. He obviously was slower and I think his forehand, which arguably was the best in tennis was a much lesser shot in 1975. Laver was still pretty good in 1975 but obviously not the Laver of 1969 and the Laver of 1969 according to a number of people like Vines was not the peak Laver of 1964 to 1967.

Incidentally I've seen the US Open at Forest Hills and when you write the court was in terrible condition you're being nice.

Laver in 1967 versus Borg in 1979 would have been a battle for the ages.

Budge won 9 straight, as well: his last 6 as an amateur, and his first 3 as a pro.

Click to expand...

krosero, Thanks for the information. I was not aware of it.

But it works for Budge only if we exclude the 1939 Southport event. Southport was sometimes called the British Pro and I rate it as a pro major. Nüsslein, the winner, also valued it as a major tournament.

But it works for Budge only if we exclude the 1939 Southport event. Southport was sometimes called the British Pro and I rate it as a pro major. Nüsslein, the winner, also valued it as a major tournament.

Click to expand...

Yes it's a problem, the whole question of what's a major. I'm sure Southport could be rated a major, just that I would argue for Budge at least getting a mention when this streak is mentioned. Wrongly or rightly, we usually think of Wembley, French Pro and US Pro as the three pro majors.

IMO it's a little like the situation with the Slams. There were many years when the AO, RG, even Wimbledon had depleted fields not worthy of a true major: but when Grand Slam records are kept (like GS streaks), we still count those four, and no others.

But no question, the pro scene is more ambiguous, and there were certainly other major tournaments. The whole thing is confusing at times.

Yes it's a problem, the whole question of what's a major. I'm sure Southport could be rated a major, just that I would argue for Budge at least getting a mention when this streak is mentioned. Wrongly or rightly, we usually think of Wembley, French Pro and US Pro as the three pro majors.

IMO it's a little like the situation with the Slams. There were many years when the AO, RG, even Wimbledon had depleted fields not worthy of a true major: but when Grand Slam records are kept (like GS streaks), we still count those four, and no others.

But no question, the pro scene is more ambiguous, and there were certainly other major tournaments. The whole thing is confusing at times.

The 1927 French Championships final saw Rene Lacoste beat Bill Tilden by 6-4, 4-6, 5-7, 6-3, 11-9. Was Henri Cochet a line judge? Seriously? Doesn't that call line judge impartiality into question?

Click to expand...

I have not yet found a newspaper report from the time period that mentions the incident. Without question Tilden did reach double match point on his own serve. The NY Times and other papers I've checked say only that Tilden didn't convert them, or that he made errors on them.

Frank Deford mentioned the incident in his Tilden bio. He quoted from an interview with Frank Hunter, who was Tilden's doubles partner at that event (they lost to Borotra and Lacoste the day before the singles finals, amid rumors of ill feeling between the two teams).

The press reported after the final that the Americans protested some decisions made by French officials during the final but did not protest any decisions made by Cochet.

TIME magazine actually reported that during the Tilden-Cochet semifinal, the umpire made decisions that went against Cochet, and Tilden refused to accept them.

So if the incident against Lacoste happened, that would be something, for Cochet to receive favors from Tilden during their semifinal, and then rob Tilden during the final.

Not saying whether the incident occurred or not, but it's an interesting issue.